Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Pro-life House Dems Thrown Under the Bus: “Stupak Dozen” Stand Firm

Pro-life House Dems Thrown Under the Bus: “Stupak Dozen” Stand Firm

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

With the stakes high over passing ObamaCare –– or not –– and only days left before President Obama is set to depart on his overseas trip (or will it be delayed again?), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still scrambling for her 216 votes to "overhaul" our health care system.

In my last article about ObamaCare, I advised that we keep our eyes on Congressman Bart Stupak. Considering the vote count is close and the "Supak Dozen" (no confirmed list to be found) have threatened to vote no on the Senates' version of the health care reform bill unless the abortion language is fixed, Stupak has certainly been in the political limelight.

This morning on America Live with Megyn Kelly, Stupak was questioned in regards to the rumor that Pelosi has peeled back several of the "Stupak Dozen" votes. Stupak responded, "not even close," and announced once again, that he is a "NO" vote if the abortion language is not fixed.

Stupak also told Megyn Kelly that "the democratic majority would like to see public funding for abortion," which is consistent with other comments Stupak made public last week. Stupak's interview on Michigan's Mark & Walt Radio Show revealed a conversation he had with Representative Waxman about the Senate version of the health care bill. “I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, '”But we want to pay for abortions.'” “I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's where we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.” "But we think should," Waxman answered.

More interesting is Stupak's phone interview with the National Review where he stated that the Democratic leadership's position is "that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” Stupak also pointed out that the arguments the Democrats have made to him in recent deliberations “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.” Without names this time, Stupak exposed one of the startling arguments that he was hearing, “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."

Later, Stupak did clarify his comments for the NRO, stating that some of his conversations with Democratic members centered on the CBO's report, which claims that his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years, and that costs should not be a reason to deny his amendment. That said; the update does not address the "more children will be born" comment, leaving many wondering what that was all about.

A few days ago, Stupak appeared On the Record with Greta, where he explained that they [his group] have worked hard to make sure current law is kept: no public funding for abortion, yet, he stated, "we haven't seen any language to placate our concerns." When Greta Van Susteren pressed Stupak if he had been approached by anyone from the top of the leadership, Supak responded with “no, because they disagree with me on the issue, so they'll wait until the last minute and see if they can run –– do an end run, get the votes without us."

Despite the fact that the Democrats have thrown pro-life House Democrats "under the bus,” it looks like the "Stupak Dozen" are standing firm –– at least we can confirm that Bart Stupak is.

In the wake of the Stupak saga arises that daunting question: how many votes does Pelosi have and can she pass the Senate bill without the "Stupak Dozen?" The answer could lie in the fact that the House Democrats may not vote at all because they are considering using the “Slaughter Solution” AKA the self-executing rule –– no up or down vote, just “deem and pass."

Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats should be aware that Americans are watching: we do care about the "process" as well as the product, and whoever votes for the "rule change" is a vote in favor of ObamaCare, DemCare, or in context of the Hyde Amendment –– Dems "don't" Care.

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • Joanne Huspek

    Interesting. With all the horse trading going on, I’m surprised they didn’t offer Stupak something to get him to change his vote. I’ve been watching this quite closely, as I’m in Michigan. While he seems like a man of his word, when you go up against Pelosi, it’s like David against Goliath. She could chew him into little pieces and spit him out in a heartbeat.

    The assertion that extra babies would bring down the system (should abortion not be covered) is a concern that was also brought up by a local talk show (Joshua’s Trail on AM1400). Who else would they “deem” a drain on the system? For the record, I’m pro-choice but I don’t think the government should fund them. You want one, you pay for it yourself.

  • Baronius

    As I understand it, they’d need to have an up-or-down vote on the “deem and pass”. The people who support the bill will be on record as having voted for it. Am I wrong?

    I get the feeling that the Democrats know exactly what they’ll have to cave on to get to 216 votes. (Note again that the legislation they’re going to vote on still hasn’t been written yet.) If they can find a small group of gazelles like Stupak that they can split off from the herd, they’ll do it. But I’m terrible at predicting these things.

  • Ruvy

    “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more.”

    There is that Eurotrash mentality – the same mentality that led to importing millions of Muslims to do shit work in the European Union. Limousine liberals in the suburbs. Abortions should be legal for them so that when their daughters screw around and get pregnant, they shouldn’t have to bear the responsibility or look as if they have raised sluts for kids.

  • John Wilson

    Every woman should have easy access to cheap reliable abortion. There’s no need to bring more unwanted children into the world to be abused by unwilling parents and become serial killers and other miscreants.

    All the “pro-life” chatter is sheer hypocrisy. Americans are elbow deep in the blood of people that we systematically killed and abused, Indians, slaves, foreigners, etc.

    We have no reluctance to kill and maim. Look at the utter nonchalance with which we destroy people and families in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    To pick out “unborn foetus” as something to be sheltered from our customary mayhem is disingenuous.

    It is mere posturing faux moralism to be against abortion.

    Abortion is legal and no one undertakes it for frivolous reasons.

  • Christine

    Baronius: you are right. A vote for the “self-executing rule,” really means they are voting “yes” on ObamaCare, because that means it will be passed.

    Pelosi seems to think that by doing it that way, they [the yes votes] are shielded and can tell their constituents that they didn’t vote for the bill; they only voted for the “rule change.”

    Hope that makes sense. Gotta run!

  • Jamison

    Wow John, if only I had a dad like you..

  • John F

    John W,
    Wow! I hope you aren’t married. With your passion for others, it’s a wonder you haven’t become one of those horrible miscreants you mentioned.

    Do you, by chance, have a death wish?
    You certainly don’t sound happy with life….



  • Braden

    Stupak really disappointed me by caving the way he did. He made a deal, getting nothing but a promise in return. He should’ve known better.

  • jeannie danna

    We made a deal, getting nothing but a promise in return. We should’ve known better.

    That’s what happened after Reaganomics failed to deliver prosperity to all.

  • Julia

    I agree with John.I was an unwanted and unloved child.I was abused and neglected.I have suffered tremendous depression,anxiety and a host of other issues my whole life.I have attempted suicide many times.Sometimes I wish I had just never been born.

  • Igor

    If we would force women to birth their children then we must needs take on willingly the raising of those children. We, society, must assure that those children have every opportunity to become useful productive citizens. Anything less is illogical and criminal.

    Hurling threats and imprecations against the mothers is just cowardly.